Re: [Tools-discuss] Datatracker login for errata

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 02-Jun-23 08:54, Robert Sparks wrote:
> 
> On 6/1/23 3:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 02-Jun-23 07:35, Jean Mahoney wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> On 5/28/23 4:27 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>>> On May 28, 2023, at 2:14 PM, John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 May 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>>>>> Could the errata require email address confirmation or is that too
>>>>>> much?
>>>>> I suppose so, SMOP.  The scripts are in the same place as the
>>>>> HTMLizer.
>>>> Any way to see what percentage of non-spam errata are from people
>>>> who do have data tracker accounts?
>>> [JM] For 2022, only 40% of the addresses that were used to report
>>> non-spam errata can be linked to a datatracker account.
>>
>> I've lost track. Do you also see spam from people who *do* have a DT
>> account?
> 
> I'll help answer that with real data, but I'm not sure how knowing would
> affect what we're discussing?

Because it would tell us whether bypassing the captcha for logged-in
users would be a reasonable short-term step, without speculating about
motivations or about the long-term solution.

> Assume the answer is yes, then what? 

We need the captcha for all errata.
...

> If the answer is no...

We don't need the captcha for logged-in users.

    Brian